Spelljammer Dark Sun confirmed? Or, the mysterious case of the dissappearing Spelljammer article...

[Parmandur]

that is daft just let people defile whenever, as making it a subclass makes it so it is every setting problem.

That's how they've said they would handle it.

 

[Parmandur]

The actual rules don't exist, but it is referred to in the 5e DMG as a category of magic. Arcane magic defiles.

While I like the idea of limiting warlocks to being the new templar class, I don't think you would need to ban bards or sorcerers at all. What I would do is create a defiling effect for any casting of arcane magic. End of story there. Then I would build in a static XP penalty or perhaps require feats to be taken in order to preserve that could be applied to any arcane casting class.

Static XP penalties are not really something I see wWotC doing as they move away from XP.

Mearls did caveat that he would put in a sidebar of "Hey, maybe your character is the only Bard on your Athas, work it out at your table," but was speaking to how WotC would formally present the Setting (similar.to what theybdid with the Magic Settings).

 

[Mind of tempest]

That's how they've said they would handle it.

it is a terrible idea to use a subclass when it does not make the mechanic work, defieing magic should be a temptation not a subclass.

Static XP penalties are not really something I see wWotC doing as they move away from XP.

Mearls did caveat that he would put in a sidebar of "Hey, maybe your character is the only Bard on your Athas, work it out at your table," but was speaking to how WotC would formally present the Setting (similar.to what theybdid with the Magic Settings).

that is a more practical idea.

 

[Parmandur]

it is a terrible idea to use a subclass when it does not make the mechanic work, defieing magic should be a temptation not a subclass.

that is a more practical idea.

Based on their current design trends, a Feat chain based kn Background seems probable.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Based on their current design trends, a Feat chain based kn Background seems probable.

better than a sub-class but the temptation would be far more evocative and show how easy it is to start the road to ruin.

 

[Parmandur]

better than a sub-class but the temptation would be far more evocative and show how easy it is to start the road to ruin.

Yeah, just...don't get your hopes up.

 

[Maxperson]

Static XP penalties are not really something I see wWotC doing as they move away from XP.

Mearls did caveat that he would put in a sidebar of "Hey, maybe your character is the only Bard on your Athas, work it out at your table," but was speaking to how WotC would formally present the Setting (similar.to what theybdid with the Magic Settings).

Then a background feat spent at 1st and 4th level to enable preserving would be a decent cost.

As for bards, they're basically a different flavor of wizards/sorcerers that uses music in their casting. I don't see a need to change them or make PCs unique. They'd receive the same stigma any other arcane caster would and have to hide who they are. They'd defile if they didn't take the preserving background feats. And so on.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mechanic. Every last spell cast by an arcane caster is an arcane spell. Every last spell cast by a divine caster is a divine spell.

What is an arcane caster? By what mechanic can we know them?

If it’s just arcane and divine as presented via class, as you claim, every class that can use a wand would talk about arcane magic, surely? Yet, I just searched the writeup for Bards, and the word never appears. Edit: oops, bards can’t use wands, after all.

Finally, feats which grant spell use do not allow you to use Spellcasting focus items to cast the granted spells. Because the ability to use them is a class feature, not a general rule.

 

[Maxperson]

What is an arcane caster? By what mechanic can we know them?

Anyone who casts arcane spells. And you don't need a general mechanic to know them. Which classes they are are told to you, and we have other mechanics that interact with the most story categories of arcane magic and divine magic.

If it’s just arcane and divine as presented via class, as you claim, every class that can use a wand would talk about arcane magic, surely? Yet, I just searched the writeup for Bards, and the word never appears.

It's not. The categories are listed in the magic section of the PHB. The classes just specify(for the most part) which of those categories an individual class appears. For bards, they are included as an arcane caster in the magic section of the PHB.

Finally, feats which grant spell use do not allow you to use Spellcasting focus items to cast the granted spells. Because the ability to use them is a class feature, not a general rule.

1) feats are optional rules. 2) feats are an explicit example of specific beats general. 3) feats can be taken by any class and therefore would not include knowledge of HOW to use an arcane focus.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Crawford says that there is no general rule for arcane or divine magic. The "moatly" is pointing towards the Class specific rules that gesture towards the narrative, though those are themselves riddled with exceptions.

You may bot be aware of this, but Arcane and Divine used to he hard distinctions baked into the Spells themselves, that had a lot.of universal rule applications regarding things like wearing armor and Spell failure. That is all gone.

Yeah, I really liked that distinction.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, I really liked that distinction.

I don't see that it added much to the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anyone who casts arcane spells.

so just tautological classification according to whatever.

And yet Bards can’t use wands, but are arcane. Except that wands are “arcane” focus items, so by your reasoning Bards should be able to use them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, just...don't get your hopes up.

I have to agree. Look for a conversion on the internet that you or make your own. WotC has moved away from those preferences and the herd has moved with them. Or maybe they moved with the herd.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see that it added much to the game.

I like something from the past, you think everything new is great. Fancy that!

 

[Maxperson]

so just tautological classification according to whatever.

Nice of you to deliberately cut out the portion of that statement telling you that the book tells you which ones they are in order to accuse me of being "tautological." You could also say arcane is any spell that doesn't use a divine mediator as specified in the magic section of the PHB.

And yet Bards can’t use wands, but are arcane. Except that wands are “arcane” focus items, so by your reasoning Bards should be able to use them.

No. I've already explained multiple ways that bards logically would not be able to use items intended to focus arcane spells.

 

[Parmandur]

I have to agree. Look for a conversion on the internet that you or make your own. WotC has moved away from those preferences and the herd has moved with them. Or maybe they moved with the herd.

Always smart to move with customer preferences. Failure to do so means death.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Always smart to move with customer preferences. Failure to do so means death.

They could have provided options allowing different ways to play the game if they had bothered to. They chose to abandon the fans of previous editions that helped make 5e successful in the first place, and chase the dragon of the new fans those older ones brought in.

I have the most recent edition of the board game Wiz War, as published by Fantasy Flight. The rules in that edition are in many ways quite different from the original rules when it was an indy start-up. But, there are sidebars with optional rules throughout, and using those rules brings the game back in line with the original presentation.

Obviously, any edition of D&D is a much more complicated game than Wiz War. But the idea of at least attempting to present different rules as options for fans of earlier versions of the game would have been a wonderful way to respect how they got where they are.

Respect for anyone who prefers something other than WotC's leading edge of design clearly isn't in the cards, however. I have the distinct impression that WotC would be absolutely ecstatic if people would simply "forget" that D&D ever looked any different than it does right now.

 

[Synthil]

The categories are listed in the magic section of the PHB.

In a section titled literally The Weave of Magic. So Forgotten Realms fluff. I don't give a rat's soggy anus about Forgotten Realms fluff. If we go by Nentir Vale fluff, Druids and Rangers are Primal casters. It would have the same amount of influence on the mechanics of the game. Namely zero, as the already have their own, distinct foci (since Tasha's anyways, previously Rangers where restricted to a component pouch).

 

[Parmandur]

They could have provided options allowing different ways to play the game if they had bothered to. They chose to abandon the fans of previous editions that helped make 5e successful in the first place, and chase the dragon of the new fans those older ones brought in.

I have the most recent edition of the board game Wiz War, as published by Fantasy Flight. The rules in that edition are in many ways quite different from the original rules when it was an indy start-up. But, there are sidebars with optional rules throughout, and using those rules brings the game back in line with the original presentation.

Obviously, any edition of D&D is a much more complicated game than Wiz War. But the idea of at least attempting to present different rules as options for fans of earlier versions of the game would have been a wonderful way to respect how they got where they are.

Respect for anyone who prefers something other than WotC's leading edge of design clearly isn't in the cards, however. I have the distinct impression that WotC would be absolutely ecstatic if people would simply "forget" that D&D ever looked any different than it does right now.

I mean, they have, pretty consistently. You are just as likely to see people complaining about how 5E bends over backwards to accommodate older players. Keep in mind that the key people actually making the game are all older edition fans, some of whom have been working on D&D longer than I've been alive, and I'm a father of four. Alienating old fans is neither a goal or an accomplishment of 5E.

 

[Faolyn]

Doesn't matter. A bard is an arcane caster, so his focus is an arcane focus. It's just a specialized one to keep bards cool and singing stuff, rather than waving wands around. It may be listed in the class, but it is in fact a mechanic that interacts with only arcane magic.

Two things:

One: an instrument isn't an arcane focus. It's a bardic magic focus--wizards can't use an instrument to cast spells, and bards can use an instrument only to cast bard spells. A multiclassed bard/wizard would still need to use an arcane focus to cast a wizard spell, as would one who took the Magic Initiate feat for wizard spells. Bards, who are well-known for being jacks of all trades and for (in meta terms) taking bits from other classes--can also use arcane foci for their bard spells.

Two: I now want to play a bard who is a conductor, not a musician, and who waves a "wand"/baton around as their focus. Reminds me of that scene from The Phantom Tollbooth.